The Nuremberg Interviews (15 page)

“My beliefs because of these facts are simple. I could dismiss as unimportant any discussion about what happens to the twenty men now here on trial as responsible for the horrors of the past war. But I should like to demand that an American Senate investigating committee, similarly created before this war, make an investigation of the conduct of the war by the Allies. Then the blame or guilt would clearly be shown as not being all Germany’s but at least in part an Allied guilt. I don’t mean that one can in any way justify Hitler’s betrayal of the innocent German people by his aggression which led to war, or Hitler and Himmler’s criminal extermination of innocent millions of men, women, and children. But if a United States Senate investigating committee would have the courage after these trials to try to ascertain honestly the guilt on both sides — then it would be proven that the Germans, disregarding for a moment the pure murders which were committed, did try to bring about a decent administration in conquered occupied countries. Such a Senate investigating committee, if it had the courage to acknowledge that, would be a great help to the present unfortunate plight of the German people. Such a committee would soon find that it was only after partisan warfare began in the occupied territories through the murder of German soldiers, et cetera, that German reprisals, shooting of hostages, and other crimes were set in motion, which brought about ever-increasing warfare and atrocities.
⁵

“Then you will get to the result that in the German people there are also not only black-and-white colorations but also shades of guilt just as among the Allies. Then you will realize that the responsibility for the war, as seen by a sane man with two eyes, does not really exist. That it is the only way in which some advantage for all people can be gained from all these tragic events.

“I know that what I am saying is somewhat confusing, but I have a clear aim in mind. I mean that one cannot blame one man or one state for the war guilt. Other states and other men also bear a share of the guilt.” I asked Fritzsche whether he meant any particular Allied nation was guilty along with Germany. He replied, “Almost all of the Allies. Hitler could not have waged this war if there had not been a constellation of guilt. The result is, of course, that the German people was betrayed and lied to by its own leader. But that this could be done is the fault, at least partly, of the rest of the world. I know. An understanding like this can only be brought out in a religious sense. But if you think of the possibilities for the advance of civilization, then at least one has to stand up and say so. In my defense, whether it be for my good or for my disadvantage, I shall make these statements in order to clarify the guilt of the world. I am not minimizing the guilt of the Nazi leaders. I am merely trying to show that the Allies bear their burden of guilt too and that in order for civilization to advance, mutual guilt must be recognized and errors corrected.

“Really, I come to this conclusion through personal suffering, such as no human being has ever suffered. It is the result of my thinking and brooding during the past year and a half, and that should not be mistaken for attempting to excuse myself or looking for some self-justification.”

Was Fritzsche’s view on this matter of Allied guilt and German guilt a philosophic one, or was it something concrete and based on examples which he knew? “It is not philosophic. It is a matter of ethics. The realization of a conviction like mine is impossible under the political status which exists today. I feel there is a religious demand—“Love thy neighbor as thyself”— a motto which has not been realized for two thousand years. What I would like to emanate from the darkness of this tragedy is one spark of life. I mean, the realization that crime does not begin when you murder people. Crime begins with propaganda, even if such propaganda is for a good cause. The moment propaganda turns against
another nation or against any human being, evil starts. Whereas the Germans started propaganda toward the end of this tragedy, you Allies stand at the beginning of the tragedy.”

Did Fritzsche mean the Versailles Treaty? “No, I mean now in 1946 you stand at the beginning of another tragedy.” Did he mean that the Allies and the Germans continue to hate each other? “Exactly. We Germans carried our hatred from the First World War to the Second World War, and now you are about to carry the hatred about the murder of 5 million people on to another World War.”

I asked Fritzsche whether he felt that it was unimportant to prosecute those responsible for the murder of 5 million people. “Without doubt. That has been my feeling for a year. I always complained when the lawyers spoke of petty things, such as whether Goering said this or that. It was unimportant — the only decisive question was not put to Goering. The prosecution should have asked him directly, ‘You were the second man in the state where 5 million Jews were murdered, not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent people, hostages, whole villages destroyed for no reason, et cetera. What about those Jews and the other innocent victims of murder?’ It is completely unbelievable that Goering didn’t know all about it. If I myself received letters regarding these atrocities, how many more letters did Goering really receive?

“And another question was also unfortunately not asked of Goering: ‘The German people put faith in you even if they doubted Hitler because you were gentlemanly and more likable. What did you, Goering, do to justify this confidence? You have led a luxurious life and collected stolen art.’ Such other questions should have been asked.

“Similarly, the defendant Frank was not asked decisive questions. For example, when Frank was asked what he knew of the Jewish murders, he said, ‘You could smell it.’ That is a complete lie and a dishonesty. Frank could not only smell it, he knew about it. There he was, the governor general of Poland — he couldn’t just have smelled it, he must have known it. The rest of the trial is without any importance.” I asked Fritzsche whether he did not think that Frank, during his defense, perhaps tried to be honest but, after so many years of deluding himself, was incapable of telling the truth. Fritzsche replied, “Yes, but that doesn’t help the German people. At a moment like this the truth is the all-important issue. I have only one interest — that the fault of the other side, the Allies, be brought out, not as an excuse for us but for the future prevention of war
and atrocities. An example of this is the case of the Bolsheviks. If they, in the face of their great cruelties committed in Germany, want to shed their dirty linen, then they should actually take it off. In Russia people just disappeared — in other words, became political prisoners. When I was a prisoner of the Russians after the war ended, I was in the same cell with a Russian general who had been there for four years without any communication or news from the outside. And I will not mention the millions of Germans evacuated from German territories in the East, most of whom were landowners and their families. One might say that they, too, were deported as ‘night and fog’ prisoners.
⁶
But I am not the man to go into actual politics.”

I asked him what he thought of Schacht’s defense. “Schacht is a disappointment because of another thing. If I would have had the terrible secrets of crimes committed by the Nazis in my hands, which Schacht said he possessed, then I would not have participated for ten years in a conspiracy. And I wouldn’t participate in an
Attentat
solely in 1944, which incidentally was to be committed not by Schacht but by others — a cowardly
Attentat
at that, which meant placing a bomb under Hitler’s table and then running off. If Schacht felt as nauseated by the Nazis as he now claims, he would have had to draw a pistol himself and shoot the man responsible for these dastardly actions, I mean Hitler himself. Anything else is unthinkable, with the knowledge that Schacht had.”

Fritzsche has been seen about once a week by me and we have talked of various matters, mainly about his early history and development. Today we spoke about his worldview, which has, of course, come up before. I asked him whether he believed in the basic principles of Nazism at this time. “I do not believe in the Führer principle. I always opposed that even while I was with the Propaganda Ministry during the height of the National Socialist regime. I was always of the opinion that the only form of government fit for human beings is a democratic one. I openly admitted that in a radio broadcast, but I said: The democracy which shows up in the United States and in England is not an ideal democracy, because the will of the people is under the pressure of property, which is in the hands of the wealthy capitalists.

“On the other side, democracy is overcome by dictatorship. So it appeared to me that a dictatorship was perfectly permissible for reasons
of practicality for a limited time. I felt that there would be a slight differentiation from democratic lines in Germany for a certain time. I was convinced of this because the German people had had sad experience with the democratic parliamentarian form of government. But I want to say precisely after today, after the murder of 5 million people under a leadership state, that I am of the opinion that the Führer principle is not possible any longer, because under another form of government, even if it were not ideally democratic, such things could not possibly happen. I cannot agree with my own feeling during the time of my work for the Nazis any longer. There are other examples of the evils of the leadership principle, such as the bad examples set by district party leaders.

“I must say, however, that even today I see the tremendous idealism which came to life with National Socialism among the people. To express it very plainly, after one year of very intensive thinking on my part, all the years of National Socialist government were characterized by the fact that there were two groups: One, the mass of many millions of pure idealists who said that everyone had to forgo their individual rights, welfare, opinions, and wishes so that for once the state would be healthy. On the other side there was a smaller group, on top of which was the Führer, of which I can only say today that they broke their promises to the millions, and misused their power by breaking the faith which was put in them.

“And whatever bad things the millions of people who were idealists saw in this small group, they excused as revolutionary trends which would soon pass. In reality these were not just passing trends, but constituted the principle itself. That, in my analysis, was the tragedy of the German people and the German nation.

“I am under the impression that the prosecution does not try to bring out that point, and similarly none of the defendants bring it out. I feel that the prosecution is hindered by trying to paint a picture of black-and-white, and to paint the defendants black. I feel the necessity for finding out the real guilt once and for all, even if it occurred after this trial and after my death.

“Perhaps the first and foremost guilty ally is Bolshevik Russia. The gangster method in German politics was introduced in 1919 by the Communists. When the Nazis appeared in 1923 and 1924, the German people would have declined them because of their method if the Nazis had not used excuses: ‘We could not deal differently with the Communists.’

“Secondly, all democratic governments of the Allies from 1919 to 1932 did not fulfill any of the peaceful, decent wishes of the German people. Then only when Hitler came to power did the Allies grant him and Germany everything they asked. Part of the Allied guilt no doubt was in granting to Hitler and his government his every last wish. Ah well, there is no use going into polemics here and now.

“But the prosecution does not see what a mistake it was to refuse the wishes of the German democratic government from 1919 until the advent of Hitler in 1933. Whenever Gustav Stresemann or Heinrich Bruening asked help from the Allies, nothing was forthcoming. But when Hitler with his gangster methods demanded anything, England and France handed it over on a silver platter and asked him if he didn’t want even more.
⁷

“The third point which I want to bring up when my defense starts concerns the fact that the prosecution pays no attention to the importance of the originally peaceful occupation of France by us Germans. This occupation only became harsh when the resistance movements were organized and Germans were murdered or sabotaged in France by partisans who were stirred up by the Allied radio propaganda.”

I asked him whether what he was saying was a historical fact or was his own personal opinion and observation. “I can testify to it myself. I participated in the offensive against France for several days. I saw that that country was hardly destroyed. I could almost swear that not more than ten wristwatches were looted by our troops in the whole of France. I myself saw how tremendous masses of French refugees were taken care of by special German units, for example, the Bavarian Trucking Company, which had forty or forty-five trucks with built-in kitchens and supplies. I could give many such examples.

“In Russia, before I went to the front in November 1942, I drove all by myself through many villages near Kiev and Kharkov. I was in German military uniform, alone, unguarded, and yet slept peacefully in farmhouses and was fed by the population and I also observed that people were almost happy. Yet three-fourths of a year later, that whole country through which I had traveled was full of partisans — and that was how it came about that villages were burned, people shot, hostages taken, and general terror ensued.”

I asked him to explain this transformation from a peaceful country to one which put up so much partisan resistance. He said with great certainty, “It was due to the propaganda which came from Moscow.
⁸
In my
opinion, the partisan and resistance movements did not grow within the country itself but from the outside. From the time of the first shootings, because of partisans — at that moment the screw tightened automatically and continued to tighten with no help from the outside. I understand that these things are not mentioned in this trial. But I hope that at least after the trial they will be objective enough to investigate. I hope for it in the interest of my people, but God knows I hope for it in the interest of humanity.